arXiv subjects

Neil Thompson

Publications and source records attributed to Neil Thompson.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Assessing Company Contributions to Societal Resilience: Extending the Societal Capacity Assessment Framework to Agentic AI

Companies that deploy AI agents and make them available to others are creating the sociotechnical circumstances under which this technology integrates into existing social and economic structures. AI-deploying companies are institutional actors that actively shape society's capacity to withstand and govern the consequences of agentic AI. In view of these societal impacts, companies can build societal resilience by designing and promoting safer implementations of AI agents. To operationalize this goal, this paper adapts the indicator-based Societal Capacity Assessment Framework (SCAF) to measure how a company's deployment decisions contribute to societal resilience, inverting its original measurement of societal resilience as a backdrop for deployment decisions (Gandhi et al., 2025). Our procedure has two steps: a conceptual step in which we design a suite of indicators that define what SCAF's vulnerability, coping, and adaptive capacities mean when assessing a company's agentic AI deployment decisions; and a measurement step in which we apply this framework in a structured assessment of public-facing Microsoft documents.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

AI Adoption in S&P 500 Firms

The adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) by large enterprises is an important potential source of aggregate productivity improvement and labor market impact. We study AI adoption of S&P 500 firms over the period 2016 to 2025, estimating adoption at the enterprise level. While generative AI tools are useful for personal and professional applications, our focus is on the deep integration of AI in the business processes of large enterprises which are bellwethers for firm adoption more broadly. We develop a novel measure to assess deep AI adoption (and distinguish it from AI hype) that is based on SEC 10-K filings, where laws and regulations ``prohibit companies from making materially false or misleading statements." In 2025, 11% of S&P 500 enterprises had AI deeply integrated into their business processes, and a further 10% were using AI in the production of goods and delivery of services. AI adoption has more than quadrupled from 5% in 2022 with slowly accelerating adoption among non-technology firms but very aggressive adoption in the technology sector which accounts for two-thirds of deeply integrated enterprise adoption. Firm profitability shows a "J-curve" as firms move from no adoption to deep adoption, but we observe no differences in capex or productivity. Among technology firms, but not others, AI adoption is higher for firms with more employees and higher values of Tobin's q.

econ.GN↗

arXiv2026

Two AI Metrics Diverged: Will it Make All the Difference?

As exponential compute scaling continues, will the capabilities of frontier AI models outstrip what is accessible to developers on a small fixed budget? Or will capabilities converge, with "meek models inheriting the earth"? Building on Gundlach et al. (2025b), we show that the answer depends on how we value and measure AI capabilities. We discuss conventional performance measures and show that, while validation loss shows a shrinking gap, on other metrics frontier models grow their lead forever. Classifying performance metrics by their functional forms in relation to training (and inference) compute, we provide tight mathematical conditions for determining which metrics favor meek models, and show that bounded performance metrics always do. But careful interpretation of performance metrics is essential: we show that many common bounded metrics have closely-related counterpart metrics that are unbounded (and vice versa). Determining the apt metric in a domain is a prerequisite for policy, since bounded and unbounded metrics may suggest opposing policy responses. If a particular capability -- like software engineering, synthetic biology, or rhetorical persuasiveness -- is unbounded when measured in the terms we care about, frontier-level capability will likely be concentrated in the hands of a few wealthy actors. Conversely, if that capability is instead bounded, frontier-level capabilities proliferate through meek models into the hands of the many.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

The Impact of Approximation on Algorithmic Progress

In nearly every discipline, scientific computations are limited by the cost and speed of computation. For example, the best-known exact algorithms for the canonical Traveling Salesman Problem would take centuries to run on an instance of size 1 million. A natural response to such limits is to try to find new algorithms or to parallelize existing ones, but many algorithms are already at their theoretically-optimal level and parallelization is often impossible or prohibitively expensive. Starting in the 1960's, computer scientists pursued another solution: allowing solutions to have a small amount of error (i.e. approximating them). In this paper, we survey 118 of the most important algorithm problems in computer science, quantifying the gains and tradeoffs from approximation that have been discovered over the history of the field. Overall, only $\approx$20\% of problems have benefited from approximation. However, those with good approximate algorithms can be dramatically faster to compute with little cost to accuracy. For example, a quarter of computationally intractable problems (e.g. those that take exponential time to compute) have polynomial time approximate algorithms. Approximation also increases the number of algorithms that can run in linear time by 23\%, opening up new computational opportunities for those working in the big data regime. This work also sheds light on what should be expected from progress in AI, where approximation is at the heart of how deep learning works.

cs.DS↗

arXiv2026

Crashing Waves vs. Rising Tides: Findings on AI Automation from Thousands of Worker Evaluations of Labor Market Tasks

We characterize AI automation as a continuum between crashing waves, in which capabilities jump abruptly across narrow task sets, and rising tides, in which capabilities improve continuously and broadly. Using evidence from more than 6,000 text-based, LLM-addressable tasks derived from the U.S. Department of Labor's O*NET taxonomy and over 60,000 evaluations by experienced workers, we find little evidence of crashing waves (contrary to existing views). Instead, rising tides are the primary form of AI progress. AI performance is high and improving rapidly across many tasks. In 2024-Q2, models completed text-based tasks that take humans about 1.5 hours to complete with roughly 60% success, rising above 70% by 2025-Q3. If recent trends in AI capability growth persist, frontier LLMs will be able to complete most text-based tasks at minimally sufficient quality with 88%-97% success by 2030.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Economics of Human and AI Collaboration: When is Partial Automation More Attractive than Full Automation?

This paper develops a unified framework for evaluating the optimal degree of task automation. Moving beyond binary automate-or-not assessments, we model automation intensity as a continuous choice in which firms minimize costs by selecting an AI accuracy level, from no automation through partial human-AI collaboration to full automation. On the supply side, we estimate an AI production function via scaling-law experiments linking performance to data, compute, and model size. Because AI systems exhibit predictable but diminishing returns to these inputs, the cost of higher accuracy is convex: good performance may be inexpensive, but near-perfect accuracy is disproportionately costly. Full automation is therefore often not cost-minimizing; partial automation, where firms retain human workers for residual tasks, frequently emerges as the equilibrium. On the demand side, we introduce an entropy-based measure of task complexity that maps model accuracy into a labor substitution ratio, quantifying human labor displacement at each accuracy level. We calibrate the framework with O*NET task data, a survey of 3,778 domain experts, and GPT-4o-derived task decompositions, implementing it in computer vision. Task complexity shapes substitution: low-complexity tasks see high substitution, while high-complexity tasks favor limited partial automation. Scale of deployment is a key determinant: AI-as-a-Service and AI agents spread fixed costs across users, sharply expanding economically viable tasks. At the firm level, cost-effective automation captures approximately 11% of computer-vision-exposed labor compensation; under economy-wide deployment, this share rises sharply. Since other AI systems exhibit similar scaling-law economics, our mechanisms extend beyond computer vision, reinforcing that partial automation is often the economically rational long-run outcome, not merely a transitional phase.

econ.GN↗

arXiv2026

Is there "Secret Sauce'' in Large Language Model Development?

Do leading LLM developers possess a proprietary ``secret sauce'', or is LLM performance driven by scaling up compute? Using training and benchmark data for 809 models released between 2022 and 2025, we estimate scaling-law regressions with release-date and developer fixed effects. We find clear evidence of developer-specific efficiency advantages, but their importance depends on where models lie in the performance distribution. At the frontier, 80-90% of performance differences are explained by higher training compute, implying that scale--not proprietary technology--drives frontier advances. Away from the frontier, however, proprietary techniques and shared algorithmic progress substantially reduce the compute required to reach fixed capability thresholds. Some companies can systematically produce smaller models more efficiently. Strikingly, we also find substantial variation of model efficiency within companies; a firm can train two models with more than 40x compute efficiency difference. We also discuss the implications for AI leadership and capability diffusion.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

How Much Progress Has There Been in NVIDIA Datacenter GPUs?

As the role of modern Graphics Processing Units (GPUs) becomes increasingly essential for several computing tasks, analyzing their past and current progress is paramount for determining future constraints on scientific research. This is particularly compelling in the Artificial Intelligence (AI) domain, where rapid technological advancements and fierce global competition have led the United States to recently implement export control regulations limiting international access to advanced AI chips. Consequently, this paper examines technical progress in NVIDIA datacenter GPUs from the mid-2000s through 2025. Our main results identify doubling times of 1.43 and 1.67 years for FP16 and FP32 dense operations, while FP64 doubling times range from 2.05 to 3.79 years. Off-chip memory size and bandwidth have grown at slower rates than computing performance, doubling every 3.29 to 3.41 years, whereas the release prices and power consumption roughly doubled every 5.03 and 15 years, respectively. Moreover, our cross-vendor comparison of the top-performing GPUs per year shows that NVIDIA's performance advantage is narrowing, but not enough to compel a major market shift. Finally, we quantify the potential implications of current U.S. export control regulations and the consequent performance gaps, which the recently proposed policy changes could shrink from 23.6X to 3.54X.

cs.AR↗

arXiv2025

Mapping AI Risk Mitigations: Evidence Scan and Preliminary AI Risk Mitigation Taxonomy

Organizations and governments that develop, deploy, use, and govern AI must coordinate on effective risk mitigation. However, the landscape of AI risk mitigation frameworks is fragmented, uses inconsistent terminology, and has gaps in coverage. This paper introduces a preliminary AI Risk Mitigation Taxonomy to organize AI risk mitigations and provide a common frame of reference. The Taxonomy was developed through a rapid evidence scan of 13 AI risk mitigation frameworks published between 2023-2025, which were extracted into a living database of 831 AI risk mitigations. The mitigations were iteratively clustered & coded to create the Taxonomy. The preliminary AI Risk Mitigation Taxonomy organizes mitigations into four categories and 23 subcategories: (1) Governance & Oversight: Formal organizational structures and policy frameworks that establish human oversight mechanisms and decision protocols; (2) Technical & Security: Technical, physical, and engineering safeguards that secure AI systems and constrain model behaviors; (3) Operational Process: processes and management frameworks governing AI system deployment, usage, monitoring, incident handling, and validation; and (4) Transparency & Accountability: formal disclosure practices and verification mechanisms that communicate AI system information and enable external scrutiny. The rapid evidence scan and taxonomy construction also revealed several cases where terms like 'risk management' and 'red teaming' are used widely but refer to different responsible actors, actions, and mechanisms of action to reduce risk. This Taxonomy and associated mitigation database, while preliminary, offers a starting point for collation and synthesis of AI risk mitigations. It also offers an accessible, structured way for different actors in the AI ecosystem to discuss and coordinate action to reduce risks from AI.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

The Price of Progress: Price Performance and the Future of AI

Language models have seen enormous progress on advanced benchmarks in recent years, but much of this progress has only been possible by using more costly models. Benchmarks may therefore present a warped picture of progress in practical capabilities *per dollar*. To remedy this, we use data from Artificial Analysis and Epoch AI to form the largest dataset of current and historical prices to run benchmarks to date. We find that the price for a given level of benchmark performance has decreased remarkably fast, around $5\times$ to $10\times$ per year, for frontier models on knowledge, reasoning, math, and software engineering benchmarks. These reductions in the cost of AI inference are due to economic forces, hardware efficiency improvements, and algorithmic efficiency improvements. Isolating out open models to control for competition effects and dividing by hardware price declines, we estimate that algorithmic efficiency progress is around $3\times$ per year. However, at the same time, the price of running frontier models is rising between $3\times$ to $18\times$ per year due to bigger models and larger reasoning demands. Finally, we recommend that evaluators both publicize and take into account the price of benchmarking as an essential part of measuring the real-world impact of AI.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

How fast are algorithms reducing the demands on memory? A survey of progress in space complexity

Algorithm research focuses primarily on how many operations processors need to do (time complexity). But for many problems, both the runtime and energy used are dominated by memory accesses. In this paper, we present the first broad survey of how algorithmic progress has improved memory usage (space complexity). We analyze 118 of the most important algorithm problems in computer science, reviewing the 800+ algorithms used to solve them. Our results show that space complexity has become much more important in recent years as worries have arisen about memory access bottle-necking performance (the ``memory wall''). In 20% of cases we find that space complexity improvements for large problems (n=1 billion) outpaced improvements in DRAM access speed, suggesting that for these problems algorithmic progress played a larger role than hardware progress in minimizing memory access delays. Increasingly, we also see the emergence of algorithmic Pareto frontiers, where getting better asymptotic time complexity for a problem requires getting worse asymptotic space complexity, and vice-versa. This tension implies that programmers will increasingly need to consider multiple algorithmic options to understand which is best for their particular problem. To help theorists and practitioners alike consider these trade-offs, we have created a reference for them at https://algorithm-wiki.csail.mit.edu.

cs.DS↗

arXiv2025

On the Origin of Algorithmic Progress in AI

Algorithms have been estimated to increase AI training FLOP efficiency by a factor of 22,000 between 2012 and 2023 [Ho et al., 2024]. Running small-scale ablation experiments on key innovations from this time period, we are able to account for less than 10x of these gains. Surveying the broader literature, we estimate that additional innovations not included in our ablations account for less than 10x, yielding a total under 100x. This leads us to conduct scaling experiments, which reveal that much of this efficiency gap can be explained by algorithms with scale-dependent efficiency improvements. In particular, we conduct scaling experiments between LSTMs and Transformers, finding exponent differences in their compute-optimal scaling law while finding little scaling difference for many other innovations. These experiments demonstrate that - contrary to standard assumptions - an algorithm's efficiency gains are tied to compute scale. Using experimental extrapolation and literature estimates, we account for 6,930x efficiency gains over the same time period, with the scale-dependent LSTM-to-Transformer transition accounting for the majority of gains. Our results indicate that algorithmic progress for small models has been far slower than previously assumed, and that measures of algorithmic efficiency are strongly reference-dependent.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

The Rapid Growth of AI Foundation Model Usage in Science

We present the first large-scale analysis of AI foundation model usage in science - not just citations or keywords. We find that adoption has grown rapidly, at nearly-exponential rates, with the highest uptake in Linguistics, Computer Science, and Engineering. Vision models are the most used foundation models in science, although language models' share is growing. Open-weight models dominate. As AI builders increase the parameter counts of their models, scientists have followed suit but at a much slower rate: in 2013, the median foundation model built was 7.7x larger than the median one adopted in science, by 2024 this had jumped to 26x. We also present suggestive evidence that scientists' use of these smaller models may be limiting them from getting the full benefits of AI-enabled science, as papers that use larger models appear in higher-impact journals and accrue more citations.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2025

Quantum Deep Learning Still Needs a Quantum Leap

Quantum computing technology is advancing rapidly. Yet, even accounting for these trends, a quantum leap would be needed for quantum computers to meaningfully impact deep learning over the coming decade or two. We arrive at this conclusion based on a first-of-its-kind survey of quantum algorithms and how they match potential deep learning applications. This survey reveals three important areas where quantum computing could potentially accelerate deep learning, each of which faces a challenging roadblock to realizing its potential. First, quantum algorithms for matrix multiplication and other algorithms central to deep learning offer small theoretical improvements in the number of operations needed, but this advantage is overwhelmed on practical problem sizes by how slowly quantum computers do each operation. Second, some promising quantum algorithms depend on practical Quantum Random Access Memory (QRAM), which is underdeveloped. Finally, there are quantum algorithms that offer large theoretical advantages, but which are only applicable to special cases, limiting their practical benefits. In each of these areas, we support our arguments using quantitative forecasts of quantum advantage that build on the work by Choi et al. [2023] as well as new research on limitations and quantum hardware trends. Our analysis outlines the current scope of quantum deep learning and points to research directions that could lead to greater practical advances in the field.

quant-ph↗

arXiv2025

Quantum Advantage in Computational Chemistry?

For decades, computational chemistry has been posited as one of the areas in which quantum computing would revolutionize. However, the algorithmic advantages that fault-tolerant quantum computers have for chemistry can be overwhelmed by other disadvantages, such as error correction, processor speed, etc. To assess when quantum computing will be disruptive to computational chemistry, we compare a wide range of classical methods to quantum computational methods by extending the framework proposed by Choi, Moses, and Thompson. Our approach accounts for the characteristics of classical and quantum algorithms, and hardware, both today and as they improve. We find that in many cases, classical computational chemistry methods will likely remain superior to quantum algorithms for at least the next couple of decades. Nevertheless, quantum computers are likely to make important contributions in two important areas. First, for simulations with tens or hundreds of atoms, highly accurate methods such as Full Configuration Interaction are likely to be surpassed by quantum phase estimation in the coming decade. Secondly, in cases where quantum phase estimation is most efficient less accurate methods like Couple Cluster and Moller-Plesset, could be surpassed in fifteen to twenty years if the technical advancements for quantum computers are favorable. Overall, we find that in the next decade or so, quantum computing will be most impactful for highly accurate computations with small to medium-sized molecules, whereas classical computers will likely remain the typical choice for calculations of larger molecules.

quant-ph↗

arXiv2025

Introducing the Quantum Economic Advantage Online Calculator

Developing a systematic view of where quantum computers will outperform classical ones is important for researchers, policy makers and business leaders. But developing such a view is challenging because quantum advantage analyses depend not only on algorithm properties, but also on a host of technical characteristics (error correction, gate speeds, etc.). Because various analyses make different assumptions about these technical characteristics, it can be challenging to make comparisons across them. In this paper, we introduce an open-access web-tool designed to make such comparisons easy. Built on the framework introduced by Choi, Moses, and Thompson (2023), it calculates when quantum systems will outperform classical computers for a given algorithmic problem. These estimates can be easily updated based on various assumptions for error correction, overhead, and connectivity. Different hardware roadmaps can also be used and algorithm running times can be customized to particular applications. It can currently be accessed at https://futuretech.mit.edu/quantum-economic-advantage-calculator. This integrated prediction tool also allows us to explore which technical factors are most important for quantum ``economic" advantage (outperforming on a cost-equivalent basis). Overall, we find that for some algorithms (e.g. Shor's) the timing of advantage is quite robust, whereas for others (e.g. Grover's) it is contingent, with numerous technical characteristics substantially impacting these dates. In the paper, we discuss both why this occurs and what we can learn from it.

quant-ph↗

arXiv2025

Meek Models Shall Inherit the Earth

The past decade has seen incredible scaling of AI systems by a few companies, leading to inequality in AI model performance. This paper argues that, contrary to prevailing intuition, the diminishing returns to compute scaling will lead to a convergence of AI model capabilities. In other words, meek models (those with limited computation budget) shall inherit the earth, approaching the performance level of the best models overall. We develop a model illustrating that under a fixed-distribution next-token objective, the marginal capability returns to raw compute shrink substantially. Given current scaling practices, we argue that these diminishing returns are strong enough that even companies that can scale their models exponentially faster than other organizations will eventually have little advantage in capabilities. As part of our argument, we give several reasons that proxies like training loss differences capture important capability measures using evidence from benchmark data and theoretical performance models. In addition, we analyze empirical data on the capability difference of AI models over time. Finally, in light of the increasing ability of meek models, we argue that AI strategy and policy require reexamination, and we outline the areas this shift will affect.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2024

The AI risk repository: A meta-review, database, and taxonomy of risks from artificial intelligence

Artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping society, from video generation to medical diagnosis, coding agents to autonomous vehicles. Yet researchers, policymakers, and technology companies lack shared terminology for discussing AI risks. Consider "privacy": one framework uses this term to describe a model's ability to leak sensitive training data, while another uses it to mean freedom from government surveillance. Conversely, researchers have introduced "Goodhart's law," "specification gaming," "reward hacking," and "mesa-optimization" to describe the same phenomenon of AI systems optimizing for measured proxies rather than intended goals. This terminological diversity creates friction: comparing findings across studies requires mapping between frameworks, and comprehensive risk coverage requires consulting multiple taxonomies that use different organizing principles. This paper addresses this challenge by creating a comprehensive catalog of AI risks. We systematically analyzed every major AI risk framework published to date-74 frameworks containing 1,725 distinct risks-and organized them into a unified system. Our two classification systems reveal important patterns: contrary to common assumptions, human decisions cause nearly as many AI risks (38%) as the AI systems themselves (42%). The work provides practical tools for anyone working on AI safety, from developers conducting risk assessments to policymakers writing regulations to auditors evaluating AI systems. By establishing a common reference point, this repository creates the foundation for more coordinated and comprehensive approaches to managing AI's risks while realizing its benefits.

cs.AI↗